ksslemp wrote:On my way to playing all the maps from A-Z. Holding a 55 winning percentage and have lost almost 400 points so far.

If this doesnt make you see that the scoring system is screwed up, well then you're pretty f'uckin' dense!

I'm not entirely sure what the average score on CC is. All players start at 1000 points, but new recruits who dissappear usually lose more games then they win, so the actual average will be higher. The below assumes that the average point total is 1000. Because the actual average is higher, the winpercentage needed to maintain your score will be lower, and the point total on which you should stabilize will be higher, but they should make the idea clear.

You have a score of 2500. Those scores express that if you play a game against an opponent with 1000 points (the assumed average), you are expected to win roughly 6 games for every game they win. If you don't hold a winning percentage of 85%, you don't do as well as your score implies, meaning that your score is likely higher then it should be and you should lose points.

If you maintain a win percentage of 55% in 1v1 games, and the average opponent you play has a score of 1000, the score that actually reflects that you win 55% of the time is 1100.

Based on the data you have given, you are ranked far higher then your actual results say you should, even after the 400 point loss. So why are those 400 points lost an indication of a screwed up system?

JefJef wrote:A minimum of points won and a maximum lost.

Say 10 minimum per player win and 30 maximum per player loss.

Or a minimum won of 1 and a maximum lost of 100, as we currently have?

SirSebstar wrote:I understand the current point-system, and though its not entirely fair, i'd like to hear a better one instead of whats wrong with this one.

A minimum of points won and a maximum lost.

Say 10 minimum per player win and 30 maximum per player loss.

not to crack you down, but this only means premium players/ players who play lots of games have a huge advantage. basicly you can be as bad as a cook, but if you play 10k games 1vs1 in a month and win 51% you'd still be in the top of the rankingto stay on top now you have to pick your battles, but if you are just good you will surface high anyways. I am not talking about conqueror, but anybody who is good can make major or colonel.

ksslemp wrote:On my way to playing all the maps from A-Z. Holding a 55 winning percentage and have lost almost 400 points so far.

If this doesnt make you see that the scoring system is screwed up, well then you're pretty f'uckin' dense!

I'm not entirely sure what the average score on CC is. All players start at 1000 points, but new recruits who dissappear usually lose more games then they win, so the actual average will be higher. The below assumes that the average point total is 1000. Because the actual average is higher, the winpercentage needed to maintain your score will be lower, and the point total on which you should stabilize will be higher, but they should make the idea clear.

You have a score of 2500. Those scores express that if you play a game against an opponent with 1000 points (the assumed average), you are expected to win roughly 6 games for every game they win. If you don't hold a winning percentage of 85%, you don't do as well as your score implies, meaning that your score is likely higher then it should be and you should lose points.

If you maintain a win percentage of 55% in 1v1 games, and the average opponent you play has a score of 1000, the score that actually reflects that you win 55% of the time is 1100.

Based on the data you have given, you are ranked far higher then your actual results say you should, even after the 400 point loss. So why are those 400 points lost an indication of a screwed up system?

eh ksslemp,He made the opposite of your point. You suggest higher fixed points for win he is stating that although he is highranked for points he has no real merit being so high ranked, so any pointloss will only lead him to the right place.Most agree the current pointsystem has its drawbacks. I posed the question how i can be made better. you suggestion has even bigger flaws in that playing lots of games will inflate your score but does not represent your skill.

In the topscoreboard there are a few highrankers with low games. They have to be good, but if they are that good we do not know. Anybody who nears 10K games and maintains a certain rank throughout is very good.. (obviously depending on the rank)

SirSebstar wrote:eh ksslemp,He made the opposite of your point. You suggest higher fixed points for win he is stating that although he is highranked for points he has no real merit being so high ranked, so any pointloss will only lead him to the right place.Most agree the current pointsystem has its drawbacks. I posed the question how i can be made better. you suggestion has even bigger flaws in that playing lots of games will inflate your score but does not represent your skill.

In the topscoreboard there are a few highrankers with low games. They have to be good, but if they are that good we do not know. Anybody who nears 10K games and maintains a certain rank throughout is very good.. (obviously depending on the rank)

Was just making him aware that he agreed that the points system is screwed up.By his observation and your winning % and points total, you should be a COOK!

SirSebstar wrote:eh ksslemp,He made the opposite of your point. You suggest higher fixed points for win he is stating that although he is highranked for points he has no real merit being so high ranked, so any pointloss will only lead him to the right place.Most agree the current pointsystem has its drawbacks. I posed the question how i can be made better. you suggestion has even bigger flaws in that playing lots of games will inflate your score but does not represent your skill.

In the topscoreboard there are a few highrankers with low games. They have to be good, but if they are that good we do not know. Anybody who nears 10K games and maintains a certain rank throughout is very good.. (obviously depending on the rank)

Was just making him aware that he agreed that the points system is screwed up.By his observation and your winning % and points total, you should be a COOK!

You mostly play 1v1 games by the looks of it.Law of averages says u will win 50%.So you have 55%,which makes You a little better then Average.Now trying playing an A-Z of maps with 8 player games when a 12.5% chance of winning comes into play.Then we can see how corrupt the points system is then.It won't be 400 points you lose it'll be 5000 lol

I agree that by specializing in certain settings (large multiplayer games, teamgames with a lowranked opponent), it is possible to boost your rating past the point where it actually reflects your ability in 1v1 play.

However, you seem to be arguing that it's unfair that high ranked players lose more points if they lose. I completely fail to see how my previous post supported that argument.

MichelSableheart wrote:I agree that by specializing in certain settings (large multiplayer games, teamgames with a lowranked opponent), it is possible to boost your rating past the point where it actually reflects your ability in 1v1 play.

However, you seem to be arguing that it's unfair that high ranked players lose more points if they lose. I completely fail to see how my previous post supported that argument.

Yeah I'm not taking sides you both have a point.I think the ranking system is a funny thing.I have heard of ideas of monthly scoreboards etc.They seem like a really good idea.

@everybodyWe have a serious, not yet mentioned flow of the system - Freestyle and Sequential are two different games (with VERY different luck factor) and should be completely separated.Otherwise, the scoring system is pretty good. In 4 pages I didn't hear ONE serious, reasonable complain...

There are a high number of maps on CC that are very simple and require little to no strategy and hense you rely on the dice to win ...no matter who you play be they big or small player ...............these games you have to avoid as a big player as you can soon loose alot of points to small players .Hense you dont get to enjoy or play the simple maps unless you want to risk loosing alot of points.

So as a big player you have to stick to a few maps that require more complicated bonuses and hope that if a small player joins they havent got a clue lol but its a fair game if you think you know the rules ....But even then if the dice are not with you then its hopeless.

Given that what players rely on most are good dice which by that i mean Luck then why have we such an awfull points system where by when you get to a better stage you are punished if you loose a game of mostly luck ........

Please please give us a fairer points system so we as bigger players dont just keep to 1 or 2 maps for our points as its kinda gets boring !

Yer maybe i should but that does still mean all simple maps are 50/50 chance of winning ...

And for the record i just got beat by a cook on my favourite map The third crusade ........dice never worked for me even with my superior knowledge hehehe ......and that really hurt ........points that is!

Futhermore, calling a Captain, Big Player... is saying too much, a Big Player, I would say that a "Big Player" would be 3000 or atleast 2700 or 2800.

I'm sure many players can reach to atleast 2700, playing against anyone in any map with any setting.

And lastly, that a map is simple doesn't mean that you can pull some strategies to win, based on the setting or on the things in the map, that only experienced players (or people who think outside the box) see. Hell, even Saint Patrick's Map (the map most luck-biased) you can even pull 2 or 3 tactits depending on the deploy and other few (you can do many things apart from going directly for the pot). So it's never 50/50 (unless we talk about equal players, but then this can happen in any map)

Well i have to beat 3 or 4 small players for the same points as 1 small player beating me for the same points ....

And considering most maps are not difficult and even the one that i specialise on Third Crusade which has got s bit of skill ...that can all change if you have your go second ......so what ever mods say i know it is not fair .......as when i put out games most are small players that take up the challenge and so I'm up and down on points like a see saw

Consider posting your games in the callouts forum for 1800+ players if you are worried about getting players with similiar points to you to join. They have a password you can set that only other players that are 1800+ will be allowed to know. You can also use that password to join other players with similiar score to yours. There are forums for 1600+, 1800+, 2000+, 2500+, 3000+, so as your score improves you can continue finding competitive games with balanced points.

Boudicia wrote:Well i have to beat 3 or 4 small players for the same points as 1 small player beating me for the same points ....

And considering most maps are not difficult and even the one that i specialise on Third Crusade which has got s bit of skill ...that can all change if you have your go second ......so what ever mods say i know it is not fair .......as when i put out games most are small players that take up the challenge and so I'm up and down on points like a see saw

And a colonel has to beat you 3 times for the same points you would get by winning 1...

In a 1v1, the one who goes second, has less chances, is not only Third Crusade, is in all maps, even conquest maps. Plus if you are specializing on Third Crusade, that means that you can win perfectly to someone, who only knows the basic of the map, even if you a second

darth emperor wrote:In a 1v1, the one who goes second, has less chances, is not only Third Crusade, is in all maps, even conquest maps.

not ALL maps but rather MOST maps.for example on All Your Base Are Belong To Us the person going second often has the advantage of finding useful info and taking bonuses from the person going first.

ok, maybe all, it was saying to much. The question is that if you specialize in one map (even if is simple), you can have a win to an average player regardless of when is your turn (and even deploy/luck)

darth emperor wrote:In a 1v1, the one who goes second, has less chances, is not only Third Crusade, is in all maps, even conquest maps.

not ALL maps but rather MOST maps.for example on All Your Base Are Belong To Us the person going second often has the advantage of finding useful info and taking bonuses from the person going first.

actually going first is better, if you are not right next to eachother (in base terms, the same race)

if you're same race it isn't necessarily better to go first.for example if you are alien and decide to take 1-2 pairs in tech lvl 1 of the alien tree you have to kill some neutral terits, then the second player simply comes and takes those terits from you. his advantage is that you were the one that cleared the terits.

and even if you're different races it can still be better to go second.

let's say you're an alien and go first.you take clon and vats. but because you don't know what race i am you can't afford to leave clon undefended so you leave the bulk of your army on clon and move just 1 to vats. with regular dice that should mean ~4 troops left on clon.then my turn comes and seeing that you conquered 2 neutral terits and analysing the snapshot from the game start i realise you took a tech lvl 1 pair. me being human and seeing that no human tech lvl 1 pair is taken leads to the conclusion that you're an alien.this means that i can now concentrate full force on taking as many tech lvl 1 pairs without worrying to protect them.this means i'll probably get 2 pairs or at least get 3 terits and a good placement of troops while you have 4 armies stuck in an useless terit. so after round 1 i already have a bigger bonus or at least have a better position for expanding

“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku